Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	hold_v	king_n	parliament_n	6,931	5	6.7094	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76829	Resolved upon the question· Or A question resolved concerning the right which the King hath to Hull, or any other fort or place of strength for the defence of the kingdome. Wherein is likewise proved, that neither the setling of the militia as tis done by the Parliament, nor the keeping of Hull by Sir Iohn Hotham, nor any other act that the Parliament have yet done is illegall, but necessary, just, and according to that power which the law hath given them. By Peter Bland of Grays-Inne Gent.	Bland, Peter, of Gray's Inne.	1642 (1642)	Wing B3162; Thomason E119_4; ESTC R10865	11,393	18

I shall not raise arguments to prove that Ligeance is due to the King in his naturall capacity as it was adiugded in 6. Iacobi neither shall I mention how that the words of the letters pattents of qeniztion be that the Patentee shall behave himselfe tanquam verus et fidelis ligeus domini regis which proves that ligeance is due to the King in his naturall capacity for all this is not to my purpose but because the Kings Majesty himselfe whom I never think on but with reverence hath made use of the last argument and others may and doe urge the former I shall sert downe the definition of the Kings politipue capacity out of which the reader himselfe thgogh but of slender Iudgment may have reason sufficient to answer all the arguments hither to which seeme to be of such force The definition of it is this it is a body framed by the polocy of man invisible immortall not subject to any infirmity nonnage or infancy so t is definid in Calvins case And who cannot gather a reason from hence sufficient to deny the last Consequence and say that though treason commited against the King by keeping of those sorts from him be treason against his naturall capacity yet it doth not follow that he hath them it hath capacity for the King hath but two capacities his naturall and his pollitique now according to the definition of the latter their can be no treason committed against that cappacity it being an inanimate and invisible body therfore needs must indictments conclude the treason to be against the natuerall capacity but if that should bee a good consequence that therefore he holds them in that capacity then the next consequence would be that hee might sell them when hee please which is directly against the Law as was resolved by the whole Parliament in Ed. the thirds time at which Parliament King Iohn his resigning his Crowne and Kingdome of England to the Pope being discussed upon mature deliberation the Lords both Spirituall and Temporall and all the Commons resolved with one accord that no King can put his Realme nor his people under such subjection without their assent and contrary to his oath The next argument may be urged is this if immediately upon the death of any King the next heire is compleatly absolutely King without any essentiall ceremony or act to be done expost facto then hee that comes in as next heire hath it by discent and not by way of trust But when a King dieth immediately the next heire is King without any especiall ceremony ergo For the Minor thus I prove it it is expressly said in Calvins case that the King holds the Kingdome of England by birthright inherent by discent from the bloud Royall whereupon succession doth attend and therefore t is usually said to the King his Heires and Successors where the word Heires is first named in primo Maria Dyer 92. a. t is expressly said that the customes are annext to the Crowne and the King hath an inheritance in them In the first yeare of King Iames his raigne if I mistake not before his Majesties Coronation Watson and Clarke Seminarie Preists were of opinion that his Majestie was not compleat and absolute King before his Coronation Now if that were not Law the minor must needs fall for then though a right to the Crowne discended yet it was in the power of others to make him compleatly King by turning his possession in Law as it were into an actuall possession or else to hinder him from ragining But you shall find it resolved by all the Iudges of England then being con rary to the opinion of those Preists that presently by the descent his M●jesty was compleatly and absolutly King without that cerimony and that Corronation was but a Roy●ll ornament and outward sollemnisation of the discent for example You sh●ll find that Henry the sixt was not crownd untill the eight yeare of h●● Raigne and yet divers men before his Coronation were attain ed of treason which clearly proves he was King before that cerimony was performed for if he had not beene King how could any man h●ve beene attainted of treason for treason is a breach of allegeance and if there had been n● King there could be no allegeance due and ●f no ligeance had been due no bre●ch of it could be made and then no treason and this is made manifest by the reports of the 5. 6. 7. years of the same King which you may read at large in Cooks reports lib. 7. fol. 11. a. Another argument to prove that when any King of Eng. dies his next Heire is King presently by discent without any ceremony may be this If he should not be King presently upon the death of the Father or Ancstour but must stay for some other ceremony to be done then there would be an interregnum in Eng. which the Laws will not suffer And to prove that the Laws do not suffer an inter regnum 't is easily gathered from the case in 9. E. 4. 51. where it is sayd that if the King be seized of land by a defeaseable title and dieth seizd this discent shall toll the entry of him that hath right which proves that he that is next King coming in as Son hath it by discent otherwise the entry of him that hath right could not be taken away and it proves likewise that he must not stay for His Majesty till some Act or other be done for then there would be an inter regnum till that Act or ceremony were past and when that Act or ceremony were past then he should be in as it were from that Act and then the entry of him that hath right cannot be taken away and so is Litleton in his chap. of discents There is likewise another case in our books from whence you may draw the same conclusion viz. If the Prince commit treason or murder he must be tried according to Law as well as another subject for he is but a Subject for there can be but one King at the self same time in the selfe same Kingdome But now if the King dyes before the Prince be tried the very immediate discent of the Crown purgeth him of his treason or murder or what ever his fact be so that he shall not be arraigned or tried for it Which case proves that he hath the Crowne immediately upon the discent for if there were any ceremony that were essentiall to making him King that ceremony might be delaid and the Prince might be attainted If the Disseisor of an Infant convey the Land to the King who dieth seised this is such a discent as shall take away the entry of the Infant and so are the Books of 34. H. 6. 34. and 45. Ass pl. 6. Plowd com 234. which proves clearly the discent t is part of the oath of allegiance which is used to this day in every Leet That you shall be true and faithfull

to our Soveraigne Lord King Charles and his heirs which word heires proves the discent And thus I have shewed you other arguments which may be used to destroy the trust but according to my promise in the beginning I must now shew where the fallacie and their mistake lyes that use those arguments And it lyes in the consequence for though the King comes to the Crowne by discent yet it does not follow that therefore he hath it not by way of trust for without doubt the trust descends with it and the trust is that onely which he hath by discent for as I said before if the King had such an estate by discent as they conceive he hath then he might sell the Crowne or dispose of it as he pleased The Parliament did give Henry the eight power to dispose of the Crowne to whom he pleased by his Letters Patents or last Will but when he intended to goe in person against France and therefore desired to have the Crowne setled because he would not breake that trust his people had reposed in him you shall finde that in 35. of that King the Crowne was setled by a Parliament then holden and in the Preamble of that Statute that King himself did acknowledge the trust and confidence his people had formerly reposed in him And to prove farther that a trust doth descend to the King of England with his Crown I shal shew how Kingoms first began and I shal take a difference betweene Kingdomes ruled by royall government and Kingdomes of politique governance and that was the difference made in answer to the Prince who demanded how it came to passe quod Rex unus plebem suam reguliter tantum regere valeat sed regi alteri potestas hujusmodi denegatur Fortescue de laudibus legum Angliae cap. 10. and I hope the same difference which did satisfie the Prince will satisfie any troublesome spirit of these times For the first the Kingdome ruled by royall government I shall shew you how it first began as it appeares by the Author last coted cap. 12. and it was thus Men in times passed excelling in power and being greedy of glory and dignity did many times by plaine 〈◊〉 subdue unto them their neighbours the Nations adjoyning and compelled them to doe them service and to obey their commands which commandements afterward they decreed to be unto these people very Lawes and by long sufferance of the same the people so subdued being by their subduers defended from the injuries of others agreed and consented to live under the Dominion of the same their subduers thinking it better for them to be under the empire of one man which might be able to defend them against others then to be in danger to be oppressed by all sich as would offer them wrong by violence and those subduers thus ruling the people unto them subdued tooke upon them to be called Rulers which our language tearmes Kings reges a regendo eorum quoque dominatus tantum regalis dictus fuit and their rule or domination onely was named royall or Kingly Fortescu Now in such a Kingdom I beleeve no trust was anext to the Crown for that King usurpt and compelled them to obedience and t is such a Kingdome that those who are so violent against the Parliament doe imagine this Kingdome of England to be or else would have it so But outs is the Kingdome of Politique and Regall governance and it hath raised it selfe into a body whereof the King is the head ut non potest caput corporis phesi ei nervos suos commutare nequè membris suis propriae vires propria sanguinis alimenta denegare sic neque rex qui est caput corporis pollitici mutare potest leges corporis illius nec ejusdem populi substantias proprias subtrahere reclamuntibus eis aut invitis Fort. cap. 13. fol. 32. Sicut in naturali corpore ut dicit Philosophus cor est primum vivens habeus in se sanguinem quem emittit in omnia ejus membru unde illa vegetantur viuunt So in the body politique sa th Fortesc fol. 31. the intent of the people is the first lively thing having within it blood that is to say politique provision for the utility and wealth of the same people which it dealeth forth and imparteth as well to the head as to all the members of the same body whereby the body is nourished and maintained So that you see hereby that our Kingdome of England is not of a Royall Government onely neither is the Crowne of so divine a temper as to enable the King to rule by the Law within his owne brest no you see the intent of the people is the primum vevens which like the heart emittit sanguinem both to the head and all the members And thus the Kingdome of England out of Brutes retinue of the Troians which he first brought out of the coasts of Italy and Greece first grew to a politique and regall Dominion ad tutelam legis subditor●m ac corum corporum ac bonorum rex talis erectus For● 32. and the same Author goes forward ad hanc potestatem a populo effluxam ipse habet quo non licet et potestate al●a populo suo Dominari And see the Prince himselfe acknowledgeth as much to his Chancellour being satisfied with the difference before taken for in the 14. chapter of the same Author fol. 34. sayes the Prince effugasti c●ncellarie declarationis tuae lumine tenebras quibus obducta erat a●●dmentis cridae So that said he I doe most evidently see that no Nation did ever of their owne voluntary minde incorporate themsel●es into a Kingdome for any other intent but onely to the end 〈◊〉 thereby they might with more safety then before maintaine t●●●selves ●●d enjoy their goods from such misfortunes and losses 〈◊〉 ●●ey s●●od in feare of for if they had not bin saith he nullam ob●●●● 〈◊〉 ●●em super ipsos rex hujusmodi which proves without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 di●cent of a trust An● 〈◊〉 further proofe that our Kingdome is not of regall onely but also of a politique governance see Fort. fol 25. b. where you may read word for word what I have penned viz. the King of England cannot alter nor change the Lawes of his Realme at his pleasure for why principatu namque nedum regali sed pollitico suo populo Dominat●r And were it otherwise the King might take away the lives and ●states of any Subjects at his pleasure but in our Kingdome non stat ●ro ra●●one voluntas And as much may be gathered from the words of Severus the Emperour who being at Yorke and one lying prostrate at his feet c●aving pardon for some small fact he had committed in the midst of his fury forbore to strike saying t is not my hand must governe the Empire And the same Emperor shortly after ended his life in the City of Yorke with these words